Equal outcomes?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I know this is probably a fool's errand hoping for a rational and measured discussion on this topic, but I'm wondering if anyone has any insights on what "equal outcomes for every student, no exceptions" actually means.

Because just taken purely at face value, it makes no sense. If a single graduating FCPS student who wants to doesn't gain admission to George Mason or JMU (let alone UVA or a private), then we've failed to achieve equal outcomes if any FCPS student IS able to gain admission to those schools. If any single student scores higher on the SAT or CogAT or any other standardized test than any other student, we've failed to achieve equal outcomes. Clearly this interpretation would be unrealistic and entirely unachievable (nor desirable).

I feel like some disingenuous folks will say "Yes, that's exactly the insanity they're spewing!", but I'm convinced there has to be a more reasonable reality that this phrase is actually intended to represent, but I just don't happen to know what it is, and am hoping someone can constructively enlighten me as to what the actual intent or meaning behind this phrase is.

For me, this is akin to when the "Defund the police" slogan arrived on the scene, and the literal interpretation of fully withdrawing ALL police funding seemed like it would lead to anarchic-type outcomes like some version of "The Purge" and thus seemed similarly unrealistic. But then when you listened and realized that what the vast majority of folks were talking about with this phrase was acknowledging the brokenness of the current system, and for example shifting funding away from militarization of the police and reducing their scope to intervene for example in mental health crises, and instead funding more of those funds into appropirately-specialized community services (rather than treating the police as some sort of universal solution to all behavioral issues in society), it was like, "Oh... yeah that makes waaay more sense."

So what's the analog here? Do they actually mean "less disparate outcomes"? Or that each demographic group has "similar overall distributions of outcomes"? And most importantly, what are the means by which they intend to increase the equality of outcomes? Is it by investing more resources for those individuals or groups who are underperforming others? Or is it by reducing the investment in programs like AAP or TJ or anything that currently supports high-achievers in maximizing their own ceilings while in FCPS? I'd really like to understand this better, and appreciate any reasoned inputs.

You’re way overthinking this. Get a life.

DP, but if it’s so obvious explain it for those who are less enlightened. It’s clearly a phrase that’s been spouted by the new superintendent and a consulting firm to which FCPS is paying a substantial sum of money.

OMG!!!! SOMEONE SAID A PHRASE!!!

Get a life, OP. Stop pushing your politics at the expense of our schools.

We all know who has been doing this for years, and it's the current crop of educrats and School Board members, and their overpaid consultants.

Yes, we know you want to keep the poors poor and will do anything you can to maintain status quo.

Promoting equal opportunities has been a laudable approach. Leveling the playing field by bringing down higher achieving kids and schools is a sure path to ruin.

Pure Republican propaganda.

No one is "bringing down higher achieving kids and schools".

Then what do you call progressive education reform efforts which included eliminating gifted and talented classes, eliminating ap classes or revamping the program so it’s “ap for all” and you have remedial learners placed in advanced students, or a general impetus to teach to the lowest common denominator,. What do you call eliminating race neutral testing for advanced schools like TJ?

I mean I know what you’re going to say, that even discussing these issues is idiotic and against equity efforts, but really these sorts of things should be debated. If you’re going to water down academic rigor, and choose folks from the top 10% of schools to allow to TJ rather than academic merit and simple test results, there should be discussion allowed. I say that because NASA doesn’t need to hire engineers to design its spaceships out of charity.

FCPS has one of the largest GT programs in the state and has incredibly broad AP offerings

That’s great. So you’re saying it’s good they haven’t eliminated as some places that have implemented progressive education reform have done? Because doing so would bring down higher achieving kids wouldn’t you say?

If you hate the county so much, there are plenty of red counties with conservative school boards that would be happy to have your kid

I don’t live in the county, but I can still comment on progressive education policies I believe to be not fully baked, correct? I’m also not conservative, but thanks for stereotyping. I would just like some simple answers to frame the debate.

FCPS has a bloated giant GT program, even if they cut it in half, it would still be larger than other GT programs in the area yet you single out FCPS even though you don't live here. FCPS has as many AP offering as any district anywhere and dual enrollment if that isn't enough yet you make up complaints about their offerings even though you don't live here? Are you sure you're not a conservative troll?

Any response to my other points? Remedial strident placed with advanced to force teaching to the lowest common denominator, ending race neutral entrance exam tests at the expense of Asian students, etc? You seem very reluctant to even debate the possibility that higher achieving kids are being done a disservice. Why can’t you even talk about it?

It's a public school district that offers more services to high achievers that almost every district in the state, yet conservatives (if you don't like the label, don't copy and paste Asra's talking points) single it out. You don't even have a kid here, yet you harp on FCPS- have you ever complained about the 130 districts in Virginia that offer even less to gifted students?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I know this is probably a fool's errand hoping for a rational and measured discussion on this topic, but I'm wondering if anyone has any insights on what "equal outcomes for every student, no exceptions" actually means.

Because just taken purely at face value, it makes no sense. If a single graduating FCPS student who wants to doesn't gain admission to George Mason or JMU (let alone UVA or a private), then we've failed to achieve equal outcomes if any FCPS student IS able to gain admission to those schools. If any single student scores higher on the SAT or CogAT or any other standardized test than any other student, we've failed to achieve equal outcomes. Clearly this interpretation would be unrealistic and entirely unachievable (nor desirable).

I feel like some disingenuous folks will say "Yes, that's exactly the insanity they're spewing!", but I'm convinced there has to be a more reasonable reality that this phrase is actually intended to represent, but I just don't happen to know what it is, and am hoping someone can constructively enlighten me as to what the actual intent or meaning behind this phrase is.

For me, this is akin to when the "Defund the police" slogan arrived on the scene, and the literal interpretation of fully withdrawing ALL police funding seemed like it would lead to anarchic-type outcomes like some version of "The Purge" and thus seemed similarly unrealistic. But then when you listened and realized that what the vast majority of folks were talking about with this phrase was acknowledging the brokenness of the current system, and for example shifting funding away from militarization of the police and reducing their scope to intervene for example in mental health crises, and instead funding more of those funds into appropirately-specialized community services (rather than treating the police as some sort of universal solution to all behavioral issues in society), it was like, "Oh... yeah that makes waaay more sense."

So what's the analog here? Do they actually mean "less disparate outcomes"? Or that each demographic group has "similar overall distributions of outcomes"? And most importantly, what are the means by which they intend to increase the equality of outcomes? Is it by investing more resources for those individuals or groups who are underperforming others? Or is it by reducing the investment in programs like AAP or TJ or anything that currently supports high-achievers in maximizing their own ceilings while in FCPS? I'd really like to understand this better, and appreciate any reasoned inputs.

You’re way overthinking this. Get a life.

DP, but if it’s so obvious explain it for those who are less enlightened. It’s clearly a phrase that’s been spouted by the new superintendent and a consulting firm to which FCPS is paying a substantial sum of money.

OMG!!!! SOMEONE SAID A PHRASE!!!

Get a life, OP. Stop pushing your politics at the expense of our schools.

We all know who has been doing this for years, and it's the current crop of educrats and School Board members, and their overpaid consultants.

Yes, we know you want to keep the poors poor and will do anything you can to maintain status quo.

Promoting equal opportunities has been a laudable approach. Leveling the playing field by bringing down higher achieving kids and schools is a sure path to ruin.

Pure Republican propaganda.

No one is "bringing down higher achieving kids and schools".

Then what do you call progressive education reform efforts which included eliminating gifted and talented classes, eliminating ap classes or revamping the program so it’s “ap for all” and you have remedial learners placed in advanced students, or a general impetus to teach to the lowest common denominator,. What do you call eliminating race neutral testing for advanced schools like TJ?

I mean I know what you’re going to say, that even discussing these issues is idiotic and against equity efforts, but really these sorts of things should be debated. If you’re going to water down academic rigor, and choose folks from the top 10% of schools to allow to TJ rather than academic merit and simple test results, there should be discussion allowed. I say that because NASA doesn’t need to hire engineers to design its spaceships out of charity.

FCPS has one of the largest GT programs in the state and has incredibly broad AP offerings

That’s great. So you’re saying it’s good they haven’t eliminated as some places that have implemented progressive education reform have done? Because doing so would bring down higher achieving kids wouldn’t you say?

If you hate the county so much, there are plenty of red counties with conservative school boards that would be happy to have your kid

I don’t live in the county, but I can still comment on progressive education policies I believe to be not fully baked, correct? I’m also not conservative, but thanks for stereotyping. I would just like some simple answers to frame the debate.

FCPS has a bloated giant GT program, even if they cut it in half, it would still be larger than other GT programs in the area yet you single out FCPS even though you don't live here. FCPS has as many AP offering as any district anywhere and dual enrollment if that isn't enough yet you make up complaints about their offerings even though you don't live here? Are you sure you're not a conservative troll?

Any response to my other points? Remedial strident placed with advanced to force teaching to the lowest common denominator, ending race neutral entrance exam tests at the expense of Asian students, etc? You seem very reluctant to even debate the possibility that higher achieving kids are being done a disservice. Why can’t you even talk about it?

I am Democrat and, as a teacher, I am on your side. Whoever is calling your points “conservative” needs a reality check.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:FCPS’s job is to educate children. One major metric of their performance is graduation rates. If there are unacceptable graduation rates at a school, then FCPS has failed to do its job. Is one explanation for the failure that a school has a less-prepared-for-graduation population when compared to other schools? Of course. But that does not mean that FCPS can simply say, hey, it’s harder to graduate everyone at MVHS than at Langley, so don’t blame us. No, it’s their job to do whatever it takes to make sure that MVHS anD Langley both have acceptable graduation rates. Not doing whatever it takes would mean that FCPS failed MVHS.

Parents at Langley will complain that MVHS is given more resources and that it’s not fair. That’s the wrong way to look at it. FCPS may spend more at MVHS but if they do, it’s because they’re doing what they think is necessary to give FCPS the best shot at achieving its goal. FCPS’s goal is not to make sure per pupil funding is the same at every school - it’s to make sure success rates (in this example, graduation rates) are the same at every school.

In an ideal world, that success would be achieved through having the same per pupil spending at ever6 school. But we don’t live in an ideal world. Instead, we live in a world where there are schools full of advantaged students and other schools full of disadvantaged students, and very few with a mix of students. Do you seriously want there to be different acceptable outcome metrics based on the advantaged status of schools? Langley must graduate 100% of kids, but MVHS only has to graduate a lower number? Really? If not, then you need to recognize that it costs more to attempt to level the playing field.

Graduation rates are unfortunately increasingly meaningless. What matters is proficiency. I agree that FCPS should spend differently at Langley than at MVHS, and that focused efforts required (not sure if this is happening) may cost more at MVHS than at other schools. About 10 years ago - back when FCPS actually posted school SAT scores - black students at MVHS outscored black students at South Lakes. To be fair, this was a two year phenomena, so someone at South Lakes must have reacted to what was happening. Or maybe it was a statistical anomaly. This was particularly interesting because Reston is really one the most supportive and socially conscious places in America. Nature trails? Check. Beautiful fitness centers? Check. Commitment to diversity? Absolutely. Quality (for the most part) Section 8 housing? Check. Asked a black fellow Duke alum in Reston if resources could quickly be made available at no cost for SAT test prep. She said you bet. Bi-racial marriages? Lots of them. Generally very tolerant? Yes. The point here is that SAT scores ought to be approaching the non-minority mean. And MVHS should not have had scores 50 points higher given the disparities in environment. I am supportive of the schools and I think casting aside the few dumb decisions every year Fairfax does a decent job. There is a lot of criticism of the SAT but the black kids who do well generally not only come from decent homes but also take classes where they really run up against rigor and competition - meaning like most everyone else they learn to deal with good days and bad days - and imperfect teachers. The answer is not to run away from the tests, but rather to put kids in an environment where they can in the short term hit bumps in the road and pick themselves back up again. Putting kids in safe spaces doesn't mean you don't challenge them.

FCPS stopped publishing SAT scores disaggregated by race and other factors on school profiles several years ago. I don't think they ever explained why. It's possible they were concerned that they don't allow for as much of an apples-to-apples comparison as one might assume if, for example, one school really encourages Black students to take SATs and another doesn't (in which case the scores of the more motivated students who sign up to take the SATs may be higher).

FCPS has long had, and continues to have, special programs like AVID that are geared towards motivating Black and Hispanic kids and putting them on the course to attend college. They also arrange college tours that are unique to AVID programs. Langley doesn't need, and therefore doesn't have, a similar program, as it's understood that Langley families know what needs to be done to ready their kids for college. And there are other ways in which FCPS spends more per student at schools with more low-income kids.

No one has objected to that until relatively recent, when FCPS appeared to be embracing "anti-racist" and "pro-equity" rhetoric (of which "equal outcomes for all students, without exception" is just one example) that suggests that the differential in spending per student should be vastly increased in favor of kids in lower-income schools. Given that this is happening at the same time as FCPS continues to refuse to address severe overcrowding at some of its higher-performing high schools like Chantilly and McLean, and has these weird incidents like a few schools not providing timely notice to students commended by the NMSF, it is starting to come across as if FCPS wants to encourage higher-income families to pull their kids out of FCPS.

Somehow they have to figure out how to strike the right tone again. I really believe that the vast majority of FCPS families support the past and current policy of spending more on kids with greater educational needs. But they would be so better off if they could figure out a common-sense way to articulate realistic and achievable goals without all the equity babble.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I know this is probably a fool's errand hoping for a rational and measured discussion on this topic, but I'm wondering if anyone has any insights on what "equal outcomes for every student, no exceptions" actually means.

Because just taken purely at face value, it makes no sense. If a single graduating FCPS student who wants to doesn't gain admission to George Mason or JMU (let alone UVA or a private), then we've failed to achieve equal outcomes if any FCPS student IS able to gain admission to those schools. If any single student scores higher on the SAT or CogAT or any other standardized test than any other student, we've failed to achieve equal outcomes. Clearly this interpretation would be unrealistic and entirely unachievable (nor desirable).

I feel like some disingenuous folks will say "Yes, that's exactly the insanity they're spewing!", but I'm convinced there has to be a more reasonable reality that this phrase is actually intended to represent, but I just don't happen to know what it is, and am hoping someone can constructively enlighten me as to what the actual intent or meaning behind this phrase is.

For me, this is akin to when the "Defund the police" slogan arrived on the scene, and the literal interpretation of fully withdrawing ALL police funding seemed like it would lead to anarchic-type outcomes like some version of "The Purge" and thus seemed similarly unrealistic. But then when you listened and realized that what the vast majority of folks were talking about with this phrase was acknowledging the brokenness of the current system, and for example shifting funding away from militarization of the police and reducing their scope to intervene for example in mental health crises, and instead funding more of those funds into appropirately-specialized community services (rather than treating the police as some sort of universal solution to all behavioral issues in society), it was like, "Oh... yeah that makes waaay more sense."

So what's the analog here? Do they actually mean "less disparate outcomes"? Or that each demographic group has "similar overall distributions of outcomes"? And most importantly, what are the means by which they intend to increase the equality of outcomes? Is it by investing more resources for those individuals or groups who are underperforming others? Or is it by reducing the investment in programs like AAP or TJ or anything that currently supports high-achievers in maximizing their own ceilings while in FCPS? I'd really like to understand this better, and appreciate any reasoned inputs.

You’re way overthinking this. Get a life.

DP, but if it’s so obvious explain it for those who are less enlightened. It’s clearly a phrase that’s been spouted by the new superintendent and a consulting firm to which FCPS is paying a substantial sum of money.

OMG!!!! SOMEONE SAID A PHRASE!!!

Get a life, OP. Stop pushing your politics at the expense of our schools.

We all know who has been doing this for years, and it's the current crop of educrats and School Board members, and their overpaid consultants.

Yes, we know you want to keep the poors poor and will do anything you can to maintain status quo.

Promoting equal opportunities has been a laudable approach. Leveling the playing field by bringing down higher achieving kids and schools is a sure path to ruin.

Pure Republican propaganda.

No one is "bringing down higher achieving kids and schools".

Then what do you call progressive education reform efforts which included eliminating gifted and talented classes, eliminating ap classes or revamping the program so it’s “ap for all” and you have remedial learners placed in advanced students, or a general impetus to teach to the lowest common denominator,. What do you call eliminating race neutral testing for advanced schools like TJ?

I mean I know what you’re going to say, that even discussing these issues is idiotic and against equity efforts, but really these sorts of things should be debated. If you’re going to water down academic rigor, and choose folks from the top 10% of schools to allow to TJ rather than academic merit and simple test results, there should be discussion allowed. I say that because NASA doesn’t need to hire engineers to design its spaceships out of charity.

FCPS has one of the largest GT programs in the state and has incredibly broad AP offerings

That’s great. So you’re saying it’s good they haven’t eliminated as some places that have implemented progressive education reform have done? Because doing so would bring down higher achieving kids wouldn’t you say?

If you hate the county so much, there are plenty of red counties with conservative school boards that would be happy to have your kid

I don’t live in the county, but I can still comment on progressive education policies I believe to be not fully baked, correct? I’m also not conservative, but thanks for stereotyping. I would just like some simple answers to frame the debate.

FCPS has a bloated giant GT program, even if they cut it in half, it would still be larger than other GT programs in the area yet you single out FCPS even though you don't live here. FCPS has as many AP offering as any district anywhere and dual enrollment if that isn't enough yet you make up complaints about their offerings even though you don't live here? Are you sure you're not a conservative troll?

Any response to my other points? Remedial strident placed with advanced to force teaching to the lowest common denominator, ending race neutral entrance exam tests at the expense of Asian students, etc? You seem very reluctant to even debate the possibility that higher achieving kids are being done a disservice. Why can’t you even talk about it?

It's a public school district that offers more services to high achievers that almost every district in the state, yet conservatives (if you don't like the label, don't copy and paste Asra's talking points) single it out. You don't even have a kid here, yet you harp on FCPS- have you ever complained about the 130 districts in Virginia that offer even less to gifted students?

And yet all that’s changing with a focus on teaching to the lowest common denominator because of “equity” and in order to narrow the statically gaps, which in actuality means many of the policies being implemented to achieve that equity entail watering down academic vigor.

Please don’t project and spew your own propaganda:

“Pure Republican propaganda.

No one is "bringing down higher achieving kids and schools".

But offer no explanation when I offered concrete examples. You really can’t handle a debate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I know this is probably a fool's errand hoping for a rational and measured discussion on this topic, but I'm wondering if anyone has any insights on what "equal outcomes for every student, no exceptions" actually means.

Because just taken purely at face value, it makes no sense. If a single graduating FCPS student who wants to doesn't gain admission to George Mason or JMU (let alone UVA or a private), then we've failed to achieve equal outcomes if any FCPS student IS able to gain admission to those schools. If any single student scores higher on the SAT or CogAT or any other standardized test than any other student, we've failed to achieve equal outcomes. Clearly this interpretation would be unrealistic and entirely unachievable (nor desirable).

I feel like some disingenuous folks will say "Yes, that's exactly the insanity they're spewing!", but I'm convinced there has to be a more reasonable reality that this phrase is actually intended to represent, but I just don't happen to know what it is, and am hoping someone can constructively enlighten me as to what the actual intent or meaning behind this phrase is.

For me, this is akin to when the "Defund the police" slogan arrived on the scene, and the literal interpretation of fully withdrawing ALL police funding seemed like it would lead to anarchic-type outcomes like some version of "The Purge" and thus seemed similarly unrealistic. But then when you listened and realized that what the vast majority of folks were talking about with this phrase was acknowledging the brokenness of the current system, and for example shifting funding away from militarization of the police and reducing their scope to intervene for example in mental health crises, and instead funding more of those funds into appropirately-specialized community services (rather than treating the police as some sort of universal solution to all behavioral issues in society), it was like, "Oh... yeah that makes waaay more sense."

So what's the analog here? Do they actually mean "less disparate outcomes"? Or that each demographic group has "similar overall distributions of outcomes"? And most importantly, what are the means by which they intend to increase the equality of outcomes? Is it by investing more resources for those individuals or groups who are underperforming others? Or is it by reducing the investment in programs like AAP or TJ or anything that currently supports high-achievers in maximizing their own ceilings while in FCPS? I'd really like to understand this better, and appreciate any reasoned inputs.

You’re way overthinking this. Get a life.

DP, but if it’s so obvious explain it for those who are less enlightened. It’s clearly a phrase that’s been spouted by the new superintendent and a consulting firm to which FCPS is paying a substantial sum of money.

OMG!!!! SOMEONE SAID A PHRASE!!!

Get a life, OP. Stop pushing your politics at the expense of our schools.

We all know who has been doing this for years, and it's the current crop of educrats and School Board members, and their overpaid consultants.

Yes, we know you want to keep the poors poor and will do anything you can to maintain status quo.

Promoting equal opportunities has been a laudable approach. Leveling the playing field by bringing down higher achieving kids and schools is a sure path to ruin.

Pure Republican propaganda.

No one is "bringing down higher achieving kids and schools".

Then what do you call progressive education reform efforts which included eliminating gifted and talented classes, eliminating ap classes or revamping the program so it’s “ap for all” and you have remedial learners placed in advanced students, or a general impetus to teach to the lowest common denominator,. What do you call eliminating race neutral testing for advanced schools like TJ?

I mean I know what you’re going to say, that even discussing these issues is idiotic and against equity efforts, but really these sorts of things should be debated. If you’re going to water down academic rigor, and choose folks from the top 10% of schools to allow to TJ rather than academic merit and simple test results, there should be discussion allowed. I say that because NASA doesn’t need to hire engineers to design its spaceships out of charity.

FCPS has one of the largest GT programs in the state and has incredibly broad AP offerings

That’s great. So you’re saying it’s good they haven’t eliminated as some places that have implemented progressive education reform have done? Because doing so would bring down higher achieving kids wouldn’t you say?

If you hate the county so much, there are plenty of red counties with conservative school boards that would be happy to have your kid

I don’t live in the county, but I can still comment on progressive education policies I believe to be not fully baked, correct? I’m also not conservative, but thanks for stereotyping. I would just like some simple answers to frame the debate.

FCPS has a bloated giant GT program, even if they cut it in half, it would still be larger than other GT programs in the area yet you single out FCPS even though you don't live here. FCPS has as many AP offering as any district anywhere and dual enrollment if that isn't enough yet you make up complaints about their offerings even though you don't live here? Are you sure you're not a conservative troll?

Any response to my other points? Remedial strident placed with advanced to force teaching to the lowest common denominator, ending race neutral entrance exam tests at the expense of Asian students, etc? You seem very reluctant to even debate the possibility that higher achieving kids are being done a disservice. Why can’t you even talk about it?

It's a public school district that offers more services to high achievers that almost every district in the state, yet conservatives (if you don't like the label, don't copy and paste Asra's talking points) single it out. You don't even have a kid here, yet you harp on FCPS- have you ever complained about the 130 districts in Virginia that offer even less to gifted students?

And yet all that’s changing with a focus on teaching to the lowest common denominator because of “equity” and in order to narrow the statically gaps, which in actuality means many of the policies being implemented to achieve that equity entail watering down academic vigor.

Please don’t project and spew your own propaganda:

“Pure Republican propaganda.

No one is "bringing down higher achieving kids and schools".

But offer no explanation when I offered concrete examples. You really can’t handle a debate.

I'll step in then on behalf of PP.

When they say FCPS offers more services to higher-achieving kids than other districts, what they likely have in mind are (1) TJ, (2) the AAP program, and (3) the number and breadth of the IB and AP (and in some cases post-AP) courses available to FCPS students. Most districts (1) don't have a STEM magnet, (2) don't have as formal a program as FCPS for advanced academics at the ES/MS level, and (3) offer fewer IB or AP courses at the high school level.

So back to you to explain how you see the "equity speak" that is, perhaps, too common within FCPS is actually affecting this. I suppose you might say (1) TJ has been watered down with the recent admissions changes, (2) there may yet be plans to either admit less qualified kids to AAP and/or do away entirely with AAP "centers," and (3) there are some signs that FCPS is reducing the quality of IB courses, in particular, by making IB English the default English course at some schools. Those things are happening at the margins and some might seem them as negative trends, but they'd still allow PP to say FCPS offers many services to high-achieving kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:FCPS’s job is to educate children. One major metric of their performance is graduation rates. If there are unacceptable graduation rates at a school, then FCPS has failed to do its job. Is one explanation for the failure that a school has a less-prepared-for-graduation population when compared to other schools? Of course. But that does not mean that FCPS can simply say, hey, it’s harder to graduate everyone at MVHS than at Langley, so don’t blame us. No, it’s their job to do whatever it takes to make sure that MVHS anD Langley both have acceptable graduation rates. Not doing whatever it takes would mean that FCPS failed MVHS.

Parents at Langley will complain that MVHS is given more resources and that it’s not fair. That’s the wrong way to look at it. FCPS may spend more at MVHS but if they do, it’s because they’re doing what they think is necessary to give FCPS the best shot at achieving its goal. FCPS’s goal is not to make sure per pupil funding is the same at every school - it’s to make sure success rates (in this example, graduation rates) are the same at every school.

In an ideal world, that success would be achieved through having the same per pupil spending at ever6 school. But we don’t live in an ideal world. Instead, we live in a world where there are schools full of advantaged students and other schools full of disadvantaged students, and very few with a mix of students. Do you seriously want there to be different acceptable outcome metrics based on the advantaged status of schools? Langley must graduate 100% of kids, but MVHS only has to graduate a lower number? Really? If not, then you need to recognize that it costs more to attempt to level the playing field.

Graduation rates are unfortunately increasingly meaningless. What matters is proficiency. I agree that FCPS should spend differently at Langley than at MVHS, and that focused efforts required (not sure if this is happening) may cost more at MVHS than at other schools. About 10 years ago - back when FCPS actually posted school SAT scores - black students at MVHS outscored black students at South Lakes. To be fair, this was a two year phenomena, so someone at South Lakes must have reacted to what was happening. Or maybe it was a statistical anomaly. This was particularly interesting because Reston is really one the most supportive and socially conscious places in America. Nature trails? Check. Beautiful fitness centers? Check. Commitment to diversity? Absolutely. Quality (for the most part) Section 8 housing? Check. Asked a black fellow Duke alum in Reston if resources could quickly be made available at no cost for SAT test prep. She said you bet. Bi-racial marriages? Lots of them. Generally very tolerant? Yes. The point here is that SAT scores ought to be approaching the non-minority mean. And MVHS should not have had scores 50 points higher given the disparities in environment. I am supportive of the schools and I think casting aside the few dumb decisions every year Fairfax does a decent job. There is a lot of criticism of the SAT but the black kids who do well generally not only come from decent homes but also take classes where they really run up against rigor and competition - meaning like most everyone else they learn to deal with good days and bad days - and imperfect teachers. The answer is not to run away from the tests, but rather to put kids in an environment where they can in the short term hit bumps in the road and pick themselves back up again. Putting kids in safe spaces doesn't mean you don't challenge them.

FCPS stopped publishing SAT scores disaggregated by race and other factors on school profiles several years ago. I don't think they ever explained why. It's possible they were concerned that they don't allow for as much of an apples-to-apples comparison as one might assume if, for example, one school really encourages Black students to take SATs and another doesn't (in which case the scores of the more motivated students who sign up to take the SATs may be higher).

FCPS has long had, and continues to have, special programs like AVID that are geared towards motivating Black and Hispanic kids and putting them on the course to attend college. They also arrange college tours that are unique to AVID programs. Langley doesn't need, and therefore doesn't have, a similar program, as it's understood that Langley families know what needs to be done to ready their kids for college. And there are other ways in which FCPS spends more per student at schools with more low-income kids.

No one has objected to that until relatively recent, when FCPS appeared to be embracing "anti-racist" and "pro-equity" rhetoric (of which "equal outcomes for all students, without exception" is just one example) that suggests that the differential in spending per student should be vastly increased in favor of kids in lower-income schools. Given that this is happening at the same time as FCPS continues to refuse to address severe overcrowding at some of its higher-performing high schools like Chantilly and McLean, and has these weird incidents like a few schools not providing timely notice to students commended by the NMSF, it is starting to come across as if FCPS wants to encourage higher-income families to pull their kids out of FCPS.

Somehow they have to figure out how to strike the right tone again. I really believe that the vast majority of FCPS families support the past and current policy of spending more on kids with greater educational needs. But they would be so better off if they could figure out a common-sense way to articulate realistic and achievable goals without all the equity babble.

It is also relatively recently (within the past 5 years or so) that disparities between top and bottom schools have ballooned to staggering differences. 10 years ago even low performing schools still had sizable student cohorts at every level. Sports and activities had parity. Now the general trend is that the low performing schools have college-track cohorts measured in the tens of students. MVHS has advanced math (calculus) senior enrollment in the single digits. FCPS is very top heavy and scores at low-SES schools are dropping off a cliff. That's why there is such a big push to lift those schools up again.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:FCPS’s job is to educate children. One major metric of their performance is graduation rates. If there are unacceptable graduation rates at a school, then FCPS has failed to do its job. Is one explanation for the failure that a school has a less-prepared-for-graduation population when compared to other schools? Of course. But that does not mean that FCPS can simply say, hey, it’s harder to graduate everyone at MVHS than at Langley, so don’t blame us. No, it’s their job to do whatever it takes to make sure that MVHS anD Langley both have acceptable graduation rates. Not doing whatever it takes would mean that FCPS failed MVHS.

Parents at Langley will complain that MVHS is given more resources and that it’s not fair. That’s the wrong way to look at it. FCPS may spend more at MVHS but if they do, it’s because they’re doing what they think is necessary to give FCPS the best shot at achieving its goal. FCPS’s goal is not to make sure per pupil funding is the same at every school - it’s to make sure success rates (in this example, graduation rates) are the same at every school.

In an ideal world, that success would be achieved through having the same per pupil spending at ever6 school. But we don’t live in an ideal world. Instead, we live in a world where there are schools full of advantaged students and other schools full of disadvantaged students, and very few with a mix of students. Do you seriously want there to be different acceptable outcome metrics based on the advantaged status of schools? Langley must graduate 100% of kids, but MVHS only has to graduate a lower number? Really? If not, then you need to recognize that it costs more to attempt to level the playing field.

Graduation rates are unfortunately increasingly meaningless. What matters is proficiency. I agree that FCPS should spend differently at Langley than at MVHS, and that focused efforts required (not sure if this is happening) may cost more at MVHS than at other schools. About 10 years ago - back when FCPS actually posted school SAT scores - black students at MVHS outscored black students at South Lakes. To be fair, this was a two year phenomena, so someone at South Lakes must have reacted to what was happening. Or maybe it was a statistical anomaly. This was particularly interesting because Reston is really one the most supportive and socially conscious places in America. Nature trails? Check. Beautiful fitness centers? Check. Commitment to diversity? Absolutely. Quality (for the most part) Section 8 housing? Check. Asked a black fellow Duke alum in Reston if resources could quickly be made available at no cost for SAT test prep. She said you bet. Bi-racial marriages? Lots of them. Generally very tolerant? Yes. The point here is that SAT scores ought to be approaching the non-minority mean. And MVHS should not have had scores 50 points higher given the disparities in environment. I am supportive of the schools and I think casting aside the few dumb decisions every year Fairfax does a decent job. There is a lot of criticism of the SAT but the black kids who do well generally not only come from decent homes but also take classes where they really run up against rigor and competition - meaning like most everyone else they learn to deal with good days and bad days - and imperfect teachers. The answer is not to run away from the tests, but rather to put kids in an environment where they can in the short term hit bumps in the road and pick themselves back up again. Putting kids in safe spaces doesn't mean you don't challenge them.

FCPS stopped publishing SAT scores disaggregated by race and other factors on school profiles several years ago. I don't think they ever explained why. It's possible they were concerned that they don't allow for as much of an apples-to-apples comparison as one might assume if, for example, one school really encourages Black students to take SATs and another doesn't (in which case the scores of the more motivated students who sign up to take the SATs may be higher).

FCPS has long had, and continues to have, special programs like AVID that are geared towards motivating Black and Hispanic kids and putting them on the course to attend college. They also arrange college tours that are unique to AVID programs. Langley doesn't need, and therefore doesn't have, a similar program, as it's understood that Langley families know what needs to be done to ready their kids for college. And there are other ways in which FCPS spends more per student at schools with more low-income kids.

No one has objected to that until relatively recent, when FCPS appeared to be embracing "anti-racist" and "pro-equity" rhetoric (of which "equal outcomes for all students, without exception" is just one example) that suggests that the differential in spending per student should be vastly increased in favor of kids in lower-income schools. Given that this is happening at the same time as FCPS continues to refuse to address severe overcrowding at some of its higher-performing high schools like Chantilly and McLean, and has these weird incidents like a few schools not providing timely notice to students commended by the NMSF, it is starting to come across as if FCPS wants to encourage higher-income families to pull their kids out of FCPS.

Somehow they have to figure out how to strike the right tone again. I really believe that the vast majority of FCPS families support the past and current policy of spending more on kids with greater educational needs. But they would be so better off if they could figure out a common-sense way to articulate realistic and achievable goals without all the equity babble.

It is also relatively recently (within the past 5 years or so) that disparities between top and bottom schools have ballooned to staggering differences. 10 years ago even low performing schools still had sizable student cohorts at every level. Sports and activities had parity. Now the general trend is that the low performing schools have college-track cohorts measured in the tens of students. MVHS has advanced math (calculus) senior enrollment in the single digits. FCPS is very top heavy and scores at low-SES schools are dropping off a cliff. That's why there is such a big push to lift those schools up again.

At least where I am, there has been a sizable increase in low income students in the last 10 years.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:FCPS’s job is to educate children. One major metric of their performance is graduation rates. If there are unacceptable graduation rates at a school, then FCPS has failed to do its job. Is one explanation for the failure that a school has a less-prepared-for-graduation population when compared to other schools? Of course. But that does not mean that FCPS can simply say, hey, it’s harder to graduate everyone at MVHS than at Langley, so don’t blame us. No, it’s their job to do whatever it takes to make sure that MVHS anD Langley both have acceptable graduation rates. Not doing whatever it takes would mean that FCPS failed MVHS.

Parents at Langley will complain that MVHS is given more resources and that it’s not fair. That’s the wrong way to look at it. FCPS may spend more at MVHS but if they do, it’s because they’re doing what they think is necessary to give FCPS the best shot at achieving its goal. FCPS’s goal is not to make sure per pupil funding is the same at every school - it’s to make sure success rates (in this example, graduation rates) are the same at every school.

In an ideal world, that success would be achieved through having the same per pupil spending at ever6 school. But we don’t live in an ideal world. Instead, we live in a world where there are schools full of advantaged students and other schools full of disadvantaged students, and very few with a mix of students. Do you seriously want there to be different acceptable outcome metrics based on the advantaged status of schools? Langley must graduate 100% of kids, but MVHS only has to graduate a lower number? Really? If not, then you need to recognize that it costs more to attempt to level the playing field.

Graduation rates are unfortunately increasingly meaningless. What matters is proficiency. I agree that FCPS should spend differently at Langley than at MVHS, and that focused efforts required (not sure if this is happening) may cost more at MVHS than at other schools. About 10 years ago - back when FCPS actually posted school SAT scores - black students at MVHS outscored black students at South Lakes. To be fair, this was a two year phenomena, so someone at South Lakes must have reacted to what was happening. Or maybe it was a statistical anomaly. This was particularly interesting because Reston is really one the most supportive and socially conscious places in America. Nature trails? Check. Beautiful fitness centers? Check. Commitment to diversity? Absolutely. Quality (for the most part) Section 8 housing? Check. Asked a black fellow Duke alum in Reston if resources could quickly be made available at no cost for SAT test prep. She said you bet. Bi-racial marriages? Lots of them. Generally very tolerant? Yes. The point here is that SAT scores ought to be approaching the non-minority mean. And MVHS should not have had scores 50 points higher given the disparities in environment. I am supportive of the schools and I think casting aside the few dumb decisions every year Fairfax does a decent job. There is a lot of criticism of the SAT but the black kids who do well generally not only come from decent homes but also take classes where they really run up against rigor and competition - meaning like most everyone else they learn to deal with good days and bad days - and imperfect teachers. The answer is not to run away from the tests, but rather to put kids in an environment where they can in the short term hit bumps in the road and pick themselves back up again. Putting kids in safe spaces doesn't mean you don't challenge them.

FCPS stopped publishing SAT scores disaggregated by race and other factors on school profiles several years ago. I don't think they ever explained why. It's possible they were concerned that they don't allow for as much of an apples-to-apples comparison as one might assume if, for example, one school really encourages Black students to take SATs and another doesn't (in which case the scores of the more motivated students who sign up to take the SATs may be higher).

FCPS has long had, and continues to have, special programs like AVID that are geared towards motivating Black and Hispanic kids and putting them on the course to attend college. They also arrange college tours that are unique to AVID programs. Langley doesn't need, and therefore doesn't have, a similar program, as it's understood that Langley families know what needs to be done to ready their kids for college. And there are other ways in which FCPS spends more per student at schools with more low-income kids.

No one has objected to that until relatively recent, when FCPS appeared to be embracing "anti-racist" and "pro-equity" rhetoric (of which "equal outcomes for all students, without exception" is just one example) that suggests that the differential in spending per student should be vastly increased in favor of kids in lower-income schools. Given that this is happening at the same time as FCPS continues to refuse to address severe overcrowding at some of its higher-performing high schools like Chantilly and McLean, and has these weird incidents like a few schools not providing timely notice to students commended by the NMSF, it is starting to come across as if FCPS wants to encourage higher-income families to pull their kids out of FCPS.

Somehow they have to figure out how to strike the right tone again. I really believe that the vast majority of FCPS families support the past and current policy of spending more on kids with greater educational needs. But they would be so better off if they could figure out a common-sense way to articulate realistic and achievable goals without all the equity babble.

It is also relatively recently (within the past 5 years or so) that disparities between top and bottom schools have ballooned to staggering differences. 10 years ago even low performing schools still had sizable student cohorts at every level. Sports and activities had parity. Now the general trend is that the low performing schools have college-track cohorts measured in the tens of students. MVHS has advanced math (calculus) senior enrollment in the single digits. FCPS is very top heavy and scores at low-SES schools are dropping off a cliff. That's why there is such a big push to lift those schools up again.

Oh please. They expanded West Potomac to a whopping 3000 seats to ensure kids at WestPo wouldn’t get moved to Mount Vernon. This school board doesn’t really care about lifting MVHS up one bit, although they may starve schools further north and west of resources to cover it up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:FCPS’s job is to educate children. One major metric of their performance is graduation rates. If there are unacceptable graduation rates at a school, then FCPS has failed to do its job. Is one explanation for the failure that a school has a less-prepared-for-graduation population when compared to other schools? Of course. But that does not mean that FCPS can simply say, hey, it’s harder to graduate everyone at MVHS than at Langley, so don’t blame us. No, it’s their job to do whatever it takes to make sure that MVHS anD Langley both have acceptable graduation rates. Not doing whatever it takes would mean that FCPS failed MVHS.

Parents at Langley will complain that MVHS is given more resources and that it’s not fair. That’s the wrong way to look at it. FCPS may spend more at MVHS but if they do, it’s because they’re doing what they think is necessary to give FCPS the best shot at achieving its goal. FCPS’s goal is not to make sure per pupil funding is the same at every school - it’s to make sure success rates (in this example, graduation rates) are the same at every school.

In an ideal world, that success would be achieved through having the same per pupil spending at ever6 school. But we don’t live in an ideal world. Instead, we live in a world where there are schools full of advantaged students and other schools full of disadvantaged students, and very few with a mix of students. Do you seriously want there to be different acceptable outcome metrics based on the advantaged status of schools? Langley must graduate 100% of kids, but MVHS only has to graduate a lower number? Really? If not, then you need to recognize that it costs more to attempt to level the playing field.

Graduation rates are unfortunately increasingly meaningless. What matters is proficiency. I agree that FCPS should spend differently at Langley than at MVHS, and that focused efforts required (not sure if this is happening) may cost more at MVHS than at other schools. About 10 years ago - back when FCPS actually posted school SAT scores - black students at MVHS outscored black students at South Lakes. To be fair, this was a two year phenomena, so someone at South Lakes must have reacted to what was happening. Or maybe it was a statistical anomaly. This was particularly interesting because Reston is really one the most supportive and socially conscious places in America. Nature trails? Check. Beautiful fitness centers? Check. Commitment to diversity? Absolutely. Quality (for the most part) Section 8 housing? Check. Asked a black fellow Duke alum in Reston if resources could quickly be made available at no cost for SAT test prep. She said you bet. Bi-racial marriages? Lots of them. Generally very tolerant? Yes. The point here is that SAT scores ought to be approaching the non-minority mean. And MVHS should not have had scores 50 points higher given the disparities in environment. I am supportive of the schools and I think casting aside the few dumb decisions every year Fairfax does a decent job. There is a lot of criticism of the SAT but the black kids who do well generally not only come from decent homes but also take classes where they really run up against rigor and competition - meaning like most everyone else they learn to deal with good days and bad days - and imperfect teachers. The answer is not to run away from the tests, but rather to put kids in an environment where they can in the short term hit bumps in the road and pick themselves back up again. Putting kids in safe spaces doesn't mean you don't challenge them.

FCPS stopped publishing SAT scores disaggregated by race and other factors on school profiles several years ago. I don't think they ever explained why. It's possible they were concerned that they don't allow for as much of an apples-to-apples comparison as one might assume if, for example, one school really encourages Black students to take SATs and another doesn't (in which case the scores of the more motivated students who sign up to take the SATs may be higher).

FCPS has long had, and continues to have, special programs like AVID that are geared towards motivating Black and Hispanic kids and putting them on the course to attend college. They also arrange college tours that are unique to AVID programs. Langley doesn't need, and therefore doesn't have, a similar program, as it's understood that Langley families know what needs to be done to ready their kids for college. And there are other ways in which FCPS spends more per student at schools with more low-income kids.

No one has objected to that until relatively recent, when FCPS appeared to be embracing "anti-racist" and "pro-equity" rhetoric (of which "equal outcomes for all students, without exception" is just one example) that suggests that the differential in spending per student should be vastly increased in favor of kids in lower-income schools. Given that this is happening at the same time as FCPS continues to refuse to address severe overcrowding at some of its higher-performing high schools like Chantilly and McLean, and has these weird incidents like a few schools not providing timely notice to students commended by the NMSF, it is starting to come across as if FCPS wants to encourage higher-income families to pull their kids out of FCPS.

Somehow they have to figure out how to strike the right tone again. I really believe that the vast majority of FCPS families support the past and current policy of spending more on kids with greater educational needs. But they would be so better off if they could figure out a common-sense way to articulate realistic and achievable goals without all the equity babble.

Yes!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So this lack of focus on academic excellence is in all the local school systems?

When someone says there is a lack of focus on academics here, what they really mean is a lack of personal attention to their pyramid. Everyone wants their pyramid to be at the forefront of FCPS's agenda. They want their HS to have cutting-edge facility renovations, smaller AP classes, funding for STEM extracurriculars, etc.

In Dr. Reid's latest weekly message, she wrote about efforts at Mountain View to improve academic outcomes there. Why doesn't that work count as a focus on academic excellence?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So this lack of focus on academic excellence is in all the local school systems?

When someone says there is a lack of focus on academics here, what they really mean is a lack of personal attention to their pyramid. Everyone wants their pyramid to be at the forefront of FCPS's agenda. They want their HS to have cutting-edge facility renovations, smaller AP classes, funding for STEM extracurriculars, etc.

In Dr. Reid's latest weekly message, she wrote about efforts at Mountain View to improve academic outcomes there. Why doesn't that work count as a focus on academic excellence?

Yeah, how dare parents ask for some small measure of attention to their pyramid, if it's not a special school like Mountain View for "students whose life circumstances often result in interrupted schooling"?

FCPS acts like it has a captive market where parents have no other choice. The events of the past several years have shown that's not the case. It will continue to decline as long as senior leadership and the SB talk equity but practice the opposite.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:FCPS’s job is to educate children. One major metric of their performance is graduation rates. If there are unacceptable graduation rates at a school, then FCPS has failed to do its job. Is one explanation for the failure that a school has a less-prepared-for-graduation population when compared to other schools? Of course. But that does not mean that FCPS can simply say, hey, it’s harder to graduate everyone at MVHS than at Langley, so don’t blame us. No, it’s their job to do whatever it takes to make sure that MVHS anD Langley both have acceptable graduation rates. Not doing whatever it takes would mean that FCPS failed MVHS.

Parents at Langley will complain that MVHS is given more resources and that it’s not fair. That’s the wrong way to look at it. FCPS may spend more at MVHS but if they do, it’s because they’re doing what they think is necessary to give FCPS the best shot at achieving its goal. FCPS’s goal is not to make sure per pupil funding is the same at every school - it’s to make sure success rates (in this example, graduation rates) are the same at every school.

In an ideal world, that success would be achieved through having the same per pupil spending at ever6 school. But we don’t live in an ideal world. Instead, we live in a world where there are schools full of advantaged students and other schools full of disadvantaged students, and very few with a mix of students. Do you seriously want there to be different acceptable outcome metrics based on the advantaged status of schools? Langley must graduate 100% of kids, but MVHS only has to graduate a lower number? Really? If not, then you need to recognize that it costs more to attempt to level the playing field.

Graduation rates are unfortunately increasingly meaningless. What matters is proficiency. I agree that FCPS should spend differently at Langley than at MVHS, and that focused efforts required (not sure if this is happening) may cost more at MVHS than at other schools. About 10 years ago - back when FCPS actually posted school SAT scores - black students at MVHS outscored black students at South Lakes. To be fair, this was a two year phenomena, so someone at South Lakes must have reacted to what was happening. Or maybe it was a statistical anomaly. This was particularly interesting because Reston is really one the most supportive and socially conscious places in America. Nature trails? Check. Beautiful fitness centers? Check. Commitment to diversity? Absolutely. Quality (for the most part) Section 8 housing? Check. Asked a black fellow Duke alum in Reston if resources could quickly be made available at no cost for SAT test prep. She said you bet. Bi-racial marriages? Lots of them. Generally very tolerant? Yes. The point here is that SAT scores ought to be approaching the non-minority mean. And MVHS should not have had scores 50 points higher given the disparities in environment. I am supportive of the schools and I think casting aside the few dumb decisions every year Fairfax does a decent job. There is a lot of criticism of the SAT but the black kids who do well generally not only come from decent homes but also take classes where they really run up against rigor and competition - meaning like most everyone else they learn to deal with good days and bad days - and imperfect teachers. The answer is not to run away from the tests, but rather to put kids in an environment where they can in the short term hit bumps in the road and pick themselves back up again. Putting kids in safe spaces doesn't mean you don't challenge them.

FCPS stopped publishing SAT scores disaggregated by race and other factors on school profiles several years ago. I don't think they ever explained why. It's possible they were concerned that they don't allow for as much of an apples-to-apples comparison as one might assume if, for example, one school really encourages Black students to take SATs and another doesn't (in which case the scores of the more motivated students who sign up to take the SATs may be higher).

FCPS has long had, and continues to have, special programs like AVID that are geared towards motivating Black and Hispanic kids and putting them on the course to attend college. They also arrange college tours that are unique to AVID programs. Langley doesn't need, and therefore doesn't have, a similar program, as it's understood that Langley families know what needs to be done to ready their kids for college. And there are other ways in which FCPS spends more per student at schools with more low-income kids.

No one has objected to that until relatively recent, when FCPS appeared to be embracing "anti-racist" and "pro-equity" rhetoric (of which "equal outcomes for all students, without exception" is just one example) that suggests that the differential in spending per student should be vastly increased in favor of kids in lower-income schools. Given that this is happening at the same time as FCPS continues to refuse to address severe overcrowding at some of its higher-performing high schools like Chantilly and McLean, and has these weird incidents like a few schools not providing timely notice to students commended by the NMSF, it is starting to come across as if FCPS wants to encourage higher-income families to pull their kids out of FCPS.

Somehow they have to figure out how to strike the right tone again. I really believe that the vast majority of FCPS families support the past and current policy of spending more on kids with greater educational needs. But they would be so better off if they could figure out a common-sense way to articulate realistic and achievable goals without all the equity babble.

It is also relatively recently (within the past 5 years or so) that disparities between top and bottom schools have ballooned to staggering differences. 10 years ago even low performing schools still had sizable student cohorts at every level. Sports and activities had parity. Now the general trend is that the low performing schools have college-track cohorts measured in the tens of students. MVHS has advanced math (calculus) senior enrollment in the single digits. FCPS is very top heavy and scores at low-SES schools are dropping off a cliff. That's why there is such a big push to lift those schools up again.

At least where I am, there has been a sizable increase in low income students in the last 10 years.

Yes, there is an elephant in the room.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I know this is probably a fool's errand hoping for a rational and measured discussion on this topic, but I'm wondering if anyone has any insights on what "equal outcomes for every student, no exceptions" actually means.

Because just taken purely at face value, it makes no sense. If a single graduating FCPS student who wants to doesn't gain admission to George Mason or JMU (let alone UVA or a private), then we've failed to achieve equal outcomes if any FCPS student IS able to gain admission to those schools. If any single student scores higher on the SAT or CogAT or any other standardized test than any other student, we've failed to achieve equal outcomes. Clearly this interpretation would be unrealistic and entirely unachievable (nor desirable).

I feel like some disingenuous folks will say "Yes, that's exactly the insanity they're spewing!", but I'm convinced there has to be a more reasonable reality that this phrase is actually intended to represent, but I just don't happen to know what it is, and am hoping someone can constructively enlighten me as to what the actual intent or meaning behind this phrase is.

For me, this is akin to when the "Defund the police" slogan arrived on the scene, and the literal interpretation of fully withdrawing ALL police funding seemed like it would lead to anarchic-type outcomes like some version of "The Purge" and thus seemed similarly unrealistic. But then when you listened and realized that what the vast majority of folks were talking about with this phrase was acknowledging the brokenness of the current system, and for example shifting funding away from militarization of the police and reducing their scope to intervene for example in mental health crises, and instead funding more of those funds into appropirately-specialized community services (rather than treating the police as some sort of universal solution to all behavioral issues in society), it was like, "Oh... yeah that makes waaay more sense."

So what's the analog here? Do they actually mean "less disparate outcomes"? Or that each demographic group has "similar overall distributions of outcomes"? And most importantly, what are the means by which they intend to increase the equality of outcomes? Is it by investing more resources for those individuals or groups who are underperforming others? Or is it by reducing the investment in programs like AAP or TJ or anything that currently supports high-achievers in maximizing their own ceilings while in FCPS? I'd really like to understand this better, and appreciate any reasoned inputs.

You’re way overthinking this. Get a life.

DP, but if it’s so obvious explain it for those who are less enlightened. It’s clearly a phrase that’s been spouted by the new superintendent and a consulting firm to which FCPS is paying a substantial sum of money.

OMG!!!! SOMEONE SAID A PHRASE!!!

Get a life, OP. Stop pushing your politics at the expense of our schools.

We all know who has been doing this for years, and it's the current crop of educrats and School Board members, and their overpaid consultants.

Yes, we know you want to keep the poors poor and will do anything you can to maintain status quo.

Promoting equal opportunities has been a laudable approach. Leveling the playing field by bringing down higher achieving kids and schools is a sure path to ruin.

Pure Republican propaganda.

No one is "bringing down higher achieving kids and schools".

Then what do you call progressive education reform efforts which included eliminating gifted and talented classes, eliminating ap classes or revamping the program so it’s “ap for all” and you have remedial learners placed in advanced students, or a general impetus to teach to the lowest common denominator,. What do you call eliminating race neutral testing for advanced schools like TJ?

I mean I know what you’re going to say, that even discussing these issues is idiotic and against equity efforts, but really these sorts of things should be debated. If you’re going to water down academic rigor, and choose folks from the top 10% of schools to allow to TJ rather than academic merit and simple test results, there should be discussion allowed. I say that because NASA doesn’t need to hire engineers to design its spaceships out of charity.

Do you think the private schools that are eliminating AP classes are “bringing down high-achieving kids”? No. You can’t blame the evolution of education on poor kids.

TJ eliminated the test because too many kids were prepping for it and gaming the system.

Nobody is “watering down academic rigor”. GOP propaganda.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:FCPS’s job is to educate children. One major metric of their performance is graduation rates. If there are unacceptable graduation rates at a school, then FCPS has failed to do its job. Is one explanation for the failure that a school has a less-prepared-for-graduation population when compared to other schools? Of course. But that does not mean that FCPS can simply say, hey, it’s harder to graduate everyone at MVHS than at Langley, so don’t blame us. No, it’s their job to do whatever it takes to make sure that MVHS anD Langley both have acceptable graduation rates. Not doing whatever it takes would mean that FCPS failed MVHS.

Parents at Langley will complain that MVHS is given more resources and that it’s not fair. That’s the wrong way to look at it. FCPS may spend more at MVHS but if they do, it’s because they’re doing what they think is necessary to give FCPS the best shot at achieving its goal. FCPS’s goal is not to make sure per pupil funding is the same at every school - it’s to make sure success rates (in this example, graduation rates) are the same at every school.

In an ideal world, that success would be achieved through having the same per pupil spending at ever6 school. But we don’t live in an ideal world. Instead, we live in a world where there are schools full of advantaged students and other schools full of disadvantaged students, and very few with a mix of students. Do you seriously want there to be different acceptable outcome metrics based on the advantaged status of schools? Langley must graduate 100% of kids, but MVHS only has to graduate a lower number? Really? If not, then you need to recognize that it costs more to attempt to level the playing field.

Graduation rates are unfortunately increasingly meaningless. What matters is proficiency. I agree that FCPS should spend differently at Langley than at MVHS, and that focused efforts required (not sure if this is happening) may cost more at MVHS than at other schools. About 10 years ago - back when FCPS actually posted school SAT scores - black students at MVHS outscored black students at South Lakes. To be fair, this was a two year phenomena, so someone at South Lakes must have reacted to what was happening. Or maybe it was a statistical anomaly. This was particularly interesting because Reston is really one the most supportive and socially conscious places in America. Nature trails? Check. Beautiful fitness centers? Check. Commitment to diversity? Absolutely. Quality (for the most part) Section 8 housing? Check. Asked a black fellow Duke alum in Reston if resources could quickly be made available at no cost for SAT test prep. She said you bet. Bi-racial marriages? Lots of them. Generally very tolerant? Yes. The point here is that SAT scores ought to be approaching the non-minority mean. And MVHS should not have had scores 50 points higher given the disparities in environment. I am supportive of the schools and I think casting aside the few dumb decisions every year Fairfax does a decent job. There is a lot of criticism of the SAT but the black kids who do well generally not only come from decent homes but also take classes where they really run up against rigor and competition - meaning like most everyone else they learn to deal with good days and bad days - and imperfect teachers. The answer is not to run away from the tests, but rather to put kids in an environment where they can in the short term hit bumps in the road and pick themselves back up again. Putting kids in safe spaces doesn't mean you don't challenge them.

FCPS stopped publishing SAT scores disaggregated by race and other factors on school profiles several years ago. I don't think they ever explained why. It's possible they were concerned that they don't allow for as much of an apples-to-apples comparison as one might assume if, for example, one school really encourages Black students to take SATs and another doesn't (in which case the scores of the more motivated students who sign up to take the SATs may be higher).

FCPS has long had, and continues to have, special programs like AVID that are geared towards motivating Black and Hispanic kids and putting them on the course to attend college. They also arrange college tours that are unique to AVID programs. Langley doesn't need, and therefore doesn't have, a similar program, as it's understood that Langley families know what needs to be done to ready their kids for college. And there are other ways in which FCPS spends more per student at schools with more low-income kids.

No one has objected to that until relatively recent, when FCPS appeared to be embracing "anti-racist" and "pro-equity" rhetoric (of which "equal outcomes for all students, without exception" is just one example) that suggests that the differential in spending per student should be vastly increased in favor of kids in lower-income schools. Given that this is happening at the same time as FCPS continues to refuse to address severe overcrowding at some of its higher-performing high schools like Chantilly and McLean, and has these weird incidents like a few schools not providing timely notice to students commended by the NMSF, it is starting to come across as if FCPS wants to encourage higher-income families to pull their kids out of FCPS.

Somehow they have to figure out how to strike the right tone again. I really believe that the vast majority of FCPS families support the past and current policy of spending more on kids with greater educational needs. But they would be so better off if they could figure out a common-sense way to articulate realistic and achievable goals without all the equity babble.

It is also relatively recently (within the past 5 years or so) that disparities between top and bottom schools have ballooned to staggering differences. 10 years ago even low performing schools still had sizable student cohorts at every level. Sports and activities had parity. Now the general trend is that the low performing schools have college-track cohorts measured in the tens of students. MVHS has advanced math (calculus) senior enrollment in the single digits. FCPS is very top heavy and scores at low-SES schools are dropping off a cliff. That's why there is such a big push to lift those schools up again.

At least where I am, there has been a sizable increase in low income students in the last 10 years.

Yes, there is an elephant in the room.

No elephant in the Langley pyramid. Elaine Tholen keeps Langley free of any housing diversity so it's 3% FARMS even though it shares a boundary with 50% FARMS Herndon.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:FCPS’s job is to educate children. One major metric of their performance is graduation rates. If there are unacceptable graduation rates at a school, then FCPS has failed to do its job. Is one explanation for the failure that a school has a less-prepared-for-graduation population when compared to other schools? Of course. But that does not mean that FCPS can simply say, hey, it’s harder to graduate everyone at MVHS than at Langley, so don’t blame us. No, it’s their job to do whatever it takes to make sure that MVHS anD Langley both have acceptable graduation rates. Not doing whatever it takes would mean that FCPS failed MVHS.

Parents at Langley will complain that MVHS is given more resources and that it’s not fair. That’s the wrong way to look at it. FCPS may spend more at MVHS but if they do, it’s because they’re doing what they think is necessary to give FCPS the best shot at achieving its goal. FCPS’s goal is not to make sure per pupil funding is the same at every school - it’s to make sure success rates (in this example, graduation rates) are the same at every school.

In an ideal world, that success would be achieved through having the same per pupil spending at ever6 school. But we don’t live in an ideal world. Instead, we live in a world where there are schools full of advantaged students and other schools full of disadvantaged students, and very few with a mix of students. Do you seriously want there to be different acceptable outcome metrics based on the advantaged status of schools? Langley must graduate 100% of kids, but MVHS only has to graduate a lower number? Really? If not, then you need to recognize that it costs more to attempt to level the playing field.

Graduation rates are unfortunately increasingly meaningless. What matters is proficiency. I agree that FCPS should spend differently at Langley than at MVHS, and that focused efforts required (not sure if this is happening) may cost more at MVHS than at other schools. About 10 years ago - back when FCPS actually posted school SAT scores - black students at MVHS outscored black students at South Lakes. To be fair, this was a two year phenomena, so someone at South Lakes must have reacted to what was happening. Or maybe it was a statistical anomaly. This was particularly interesting because Reston is really one the most supportive and socially conscious places in America. Nature trails? Check. Beautiful fitness centers? Check. Commitment to diversity? Absolutely. Quality (for the most part) Section 8 housing? Check. Asked a black fellow Duke alum in Reston if resources could quickly be made available at no cost for SAT test prep. She said you bet. Bi-racial marriages? Lots of them. Generally very tolerant? Yes. The point here is that SAT scores ought to be approaching the non-minority mean. And MVHS should not have had scores 50 points higher given the disparities in environment. I am supportive of the schools and I think casting aside the few dumb decisions every year Fairfax does a decent job. There is a lot of criticism of the SAT but the black kids who do well generally not only come from decent homes but also take classes where they really run up against rigor and competition - meaning like most everyone else they learn to deal with good days and bad days - and imperfect teachers. The answer is not to run away from the tests, but rather to put kids in an environment where they can in the short term hit bumps in the road and pick themselves back up again. Putting kids in safe spaces doesn't mean you don't challenge them.

FCPS stopped publishing SAT scores disaggregated by race and other factors on school profiles several years ago. I don't think they ever explained why. It's possible they were concerned that they don't allow for as much of an apples-to-apples comparison as one might assume if, for example, one school really encourages Black students to take SATs and another doesn't (in which case the scores of the more motivated students who sign up to take the SATs may be higher).

FCPS has long had, and continues to have, special programs like AVID that are geared towards motivating Black and Hispanic kids and putting them on the course to attend college. They also arrange college tours that are unique to AVID programs. Langley doesn't need, and therefore doesn't have, a similar program, as it's understood that Langley families know what needs to be done to ready their kids for college. And there are other ways in which FCPS spends more per student at schools with more low-income kids.

No one has objected to that until relatively recent, when FCPS appeared to be embracing "anti-racist" and "pro-equity" rhetoric (of which "equal outcomes for all students, without exception" is just one example) that suggests that the differential in spending per student should be vastly increased in favor of kids in lower-income schools. Given that this is happening at the same time as FCPS continues to refuse to address severe overcrowding at some of its higher-performing high schools like Chantilly and McLean, and has these weird incidents like a few schools not providing timely notice to students commended by the NMSF, it is starting to come across as if FCPS wants to encourage higher-income families to pull their kids out of FCPS.

Somehow they have to figure out how to strike the right tone again. I really believe that the vast majority of FCPS families support the past and current policy of spending more on kids with greater educational needs. But they would be so better off if they could figure out a common-sense way to articulate realistic and achievable goals without all the equity babble.

It is also relatively recently (within the past 5 years or so) that disparities between top and bottom schools have ballooned to staggering differences. 10 years ago even low performing schools still had sizable student cohorts at every level. Sports and activities had parity. Now the general trend is that the low performing schools have college-track cohorts measured in the tens of students. MVHS has advanced math (calculus) senior enrollment in the single digits. FCPS is very top heavy and scores at low-SES schools are dropping off a cliff. That's why there is such a big push to lift those schools up again.

At least where I am, there has been a sizable increase in low income students in the last 10 years.

Yes, there is an elephant in the room.

What is the data on increase in low income students?